Originally Posted by Portoro
A number of artists in this thread also seem to confuse ‘direct’ carving (get a piece of stone and see where it leads you) with sculpture in its wider sense, which often involves a lot of forethought, analysis, research and accumulated study, and can be narrative to boot. Of course, there are various sculptors who make a particular commitment to the intuitive approach. Personally, I would fear being set adrift like that .
Hmm,... Good post, but would you be set-adrift or set-free? That's the crux of the matter..
Milton was the Michelangelo of the scribblers and his two poems (essays really) L-Allegro and El Penseroso encapsulate this argument quite readily. L-Allegro, the happy and carefree man who devotes his life and talents to play and whimsy and El Penseroso, the studious and pensive man who must define everything in relation to some formal analysis and then act upon it. Each have their merits, yet neither is dominant nor a "better" approach in the grand scheme of things... Is one of Brancusi's direct carved works, simple in form any less important or valid than a carefully planned Rodin with all his maquettes, literary research and sketches? I would argue the latter moves more quickly toward "artifact" than the former with or without any derogitory element based solely upon it's social context, or "narrative"..
Direct carving also has another meaning, which is often overlooked and that is to say that the artist him or herself executed the work and this originally came about as a backlash toward the likes of Rodin from what I understand..